The court confirmed the limited jurisdiction in reviewing administrative decisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, reinforcing adherence to procedure and factual findings.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P9 and to quash the same.

ii. To direct the respondents to ensure that the property mentioned in Ext P9 is not converted and to restore the status of the property as it was on the date of coming into force of Act 28 of 2008.

iii. To dispense with the production of English translation of Vernacular documents iv. To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is a resident of Kumarakom Village in Kottayam Taluk in Kottayam District. He used to take paddy fields on lease and used to conduct paddy cultivation on the leased properties, is the submission. During the year 2010, the 7^th respondent purchased the property in Resurvey No. 4/2-1 and 4/2-3 of Kumarakom Village admeasuring 34.61 Ares, knowing that the property is subject to all the restrictions as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 (for short ‘Act, 2008’), is the submission. He had filed an application for converting the property purportedly for public purpose, which was dismissed by Ext.P1, is the further submission. There were many attempts from the part of the 7^th respondent to illegally convert the property in question, which is evident from Exts.P2 to P5. By Ext.P6, the local level monitoring committee decided to include the property as wet land in the data bank and the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P7 order under Sec. 13 of Act, 2008 directing the 7^th respondent to restore the property in the original position, is the submission. During the pendency of Sec.13 proceedings, the 7th respondent filed an application in Form - 5 before the 3rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent, after analyzing the KSREC report and other relevant inputs, rejected the application as evident by Ext.P8. The 7^th respondent challenged Ext.P8 before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 27932/2021 and the same was set aside and there was a direction to reconsider the application. While so, the 7^th respondent preferred a revision before the Government against Ext.P7 and based on the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 27932/2021, the 3^rd respondent allowed the Form - 5 application, as evident by Ext.P9, is the submission. According to the petitioner, the said order was passed without considering the ground reality. After Ext.P9, the 7^th respondent preferred an application in Form - 7 before the 3^rd respondent. The said application was rejected by the 3^rd respondent, as evident by Ext.P10 after considering the report of the agricultural officer and KSREC, is the further submission. The government disposed of the revision petition filed against Ext.P7 remanding the matter back to the 2^nd respondent. Challenging Ext.P9 and challenging the order of the government in revision, the 7^th respondent preferred W.P.(C) No.39768/2024 before this Court and the same is pending consideration. According to the petitioner, Ext.P9 order is unsustainable, and if the property is removed from the data bank, it will prejudice the interests of the petitioner as well, who is the owner of the adjacent paddy field. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent.

4. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order passed by the authorised officer by which a Form – 5 application was allowed. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, in which it is stated that the property was not converted prior to 2008. The counsel also takes me through Ext.P7 order, by which proceedings under Section 13 were initiated. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 is contradictory